Spin-off: what makes a positive trainer a positive trainer?

DPU

trained my two danes using our relationship, emotions, and touch. 

And the picture in my mind is very positive, just not using a tin and plastic clicker and not using food treats. I also can't see you yanking on the dogs or doing much in the way of correction, either. What vision I get is that you set up an environment that is self-rewarding to the dog, not unlike 4IC, an quite positive.

FourIsCompany

simply that the main gist of most techniques and methods are ones that people can encourage others to do at home.

One show I have seen, using physical methods, has disclaimers and some of the techniques shown should not be tried at home.

FourIsCompany

I have seen (and heard) positive trainers say that some behaviors are a move for dominance on the part of the dog

My statement did not say that + trainers would never call a dog dominant or a behavior a move for dominance. Just that they are hesitant to use that description as a panacaea or catch-all diagnosis. I phrased it most carefully to include all possibilities which, evidently isn't good enough. Oh well, applesauce.

corvus

No, it's not about priorities for me at all. Science is not my priority in dealing with my dog. Having a happy, balanced dog is my priority ... It just so happens that as I am a scientific person, my path to my magic, spiritual relationship takes me through a lot of scientific theory.

Semantics. Having a happy dog is your priority, the way you go about getting that result involves your attraction and attachment to science. Same difference.

corvus

The essence that you speak of is all about the individual.

Actually, it isn't. The essence I speak of is about spirit. And I'm not at all convinced that it's an individual thing.  

corvus

Underneath the individual is evolution. In fact, evolution is what made individuals in the first place.

You keep using the term "individual" and I don't think that means the same thing as when I use the term "spirit" or "soul". And this gets into our own belief systems, which I'm willing to discuss, but not to argue. We each have our beliefs and neither can be proven, so, there's no use in arguing them.

ron2

One show I have seen, using physical methods, has disclaimers and some of the techniques shown should not be tried at home.

Yes, I know. But you said what makes a trainer positive is that people can use their methods at home. My point is that just because Cesar Millan (c'mon, we know who you're talking about) has a warning on his show to consult a professional doesn't mean that his methods cannot be used at home. The vast majority of his methods CAN safely be used at home. So, someone who is considered not positive also has many methods that can be used safely at home. They are not set apart from so-called +P trainers.

ron2

My statement did not say that + trainers would never call a dog dominant or a behavior a move for dominance. Just that they are hesitant to use that description as a panacaea or catch-all diagnosis.

And I maintain that nobody uses that description as a panacea or catch-all diagnosis. That's just your perception. In fact, most CM cases are diagnosed as not enough exercise OR giving affection without enough discipline to balance the dog. If there's a panacea, it's the "exercise, discipline and affection" balance, which I happen to believe in, strongly. Nothing to do with dominance.

I think the point is that we are all entitled to draw from our own stories, and to share them. What's tiresome, unconstructive, and makes people defensive, is being told their story is unacceptable.

I think that no one should confuse the fact that someone disagrees with you as inherently the same as finding your story unacceptable.  Houndlove does not believe in god, but houndlove's stories about that, or appreciating the magnificence of cells, are certainly not "unacceptable".  I agree with many of them, and disagree with a few, but it isn't personal.  No one can make you feel inferior without your own permission.  Defensive people try to censor.  Confident people continue to discuss, or they ignore the offender and go on having a nice life without them.  

I find it amusing that anyone would think that another point of view is somehow a "divisive tactic".  It isn't, it's just the opinion of someone who thinks differently from you.  So what?  If you think you are right, why is it so hard to tell us why, without assuming that those who disagree have some kind of ulterior motive?  We don't.  We simply believe an alternative philosophy.  If your ideas are so great, they'll survive without dictatorship.  People on internet forums who whine, ask for change rules to silence their adversaries, or segregate into sections, are not doing those forums the favor that they think.  The only way we ever have freedom of expression is to have it.  Thank goodness that the Constitution exists, or these folks would be trying to silence their political enemies, too, I have no doubt.  This thread was entitled "what makes a positive trainer a positive trainer?" not about what makes positive trainers better than other trainers.  If you are a +P trainer, why are you here telling us about that, instead of what makes you, or anyone, a +R trainer?  If you want another thread about why people use +P and why, maybe you should start one...

spiritdogs

I think that no one should confuse the fact that someone disagrees with you as inherently the same as finding your story unacceptable.

one can think that these two distinctions are inherently the same - as they come from the same foundation of not seeing eye-to-eye

one may also think that there is a difference between the two distinctions as a matter of degree to which the difference of opinion is expressed or felt

spiritdogs

]If you are a +P trainer, why are you here telling us about that, instead of what makes you, or anyone, a +R trainer?  If you want another thread about why people use +P and why, maybe you should start one...

the topic was "what makes a positive trainer a positive trainer"

that alone implies several things, and not just +r operant conditioning technique ( i know that is what you meant in the OP by your own affiliation in heart - which is, your agreement you have with yourself and your buddies) as applied to training. there was some discussion going on about energy, spirit, attitude. are these not part of the overall equation in your mind? if they are part of the equation, then would it be possible that all quads of OC could fall under the umbrella of a person who has a positive and loving attitude towards their own dogs in a reciprocating fashion - as being a positive trainer who uses many techniques at ones own disposal

Lostcoyote, the OP of this thread is Dog_ma.

I think I am the only one on this board that tried to pursue a pure positive training method for the sake of rehabbing a SA dog or as Spiritdogs  uses the term, +R training.  That is, only using one of the quads of OC.  I asked for help here and there was no way in the training where a "-" would not come into play.   I came close and it was effective but it was not pure.  So Lostcoyote, I agree with your definition of positive. 

lostcoyote

the topic was "what makes a positive trainer a positive trainer"

that alone implies several things, and not just +r operant conditioning technique ( i know that is what you meant in the OP by your own affiliation in heart - which is, your agreement you have with yourself and your buddies) as applied to training. there was some discussion going on about energy, spirit, attitude. are these not part of the overall equation in your mind? if they are part of the equation, then would it be possible that all quads of OC could fall under the umbrella of a person who has a positive and loving attitude towards their own dogs in a reciprocating fashion - as being a positive trainer who uses many techniques at ones own disposal

 

I need a scratching my head emoticon, there's a spin if ever one existed. If I follow your logic then as long as I have a positive and loving attitude toward my dog(s) I can justify anything.

if you are beating your dog with a stick, would your intent be loving or malicious?

and i do love to spin things - to see how people think - to see whether they bow like a willow or an oak and go *snap* *crackle* and *pop*

lostcoyote

if you are beating your dog with a stick, would your intent be loving or malicious?

 

If I follow your logic as long as I do it with a positive attitude it doesn't mater.

Moderators note:  the snarkiness doesn't need to be here, nor do the unpleasant comments to one another.  There is more than one post that needs some editing.  I'm hoping those posters will go in and take care of that, so I don't need to do so.

For everyone else, please self moderate.

FourIsCompany

And I maintain that nobody uses that description as a panacea or catch-all diagnosis. That's just your perception. In fact, most CM cases are diagnosed as not enough exercise OR giving affection without enough discipline to balance the dog. If there's a panacea, it's the "exercise, discipline and affection" balance, which I happen to believe in, strongly. Nothing to do with dominance

We shall continue to disagree, then. Yes, it is my perception, just as it is your perception that I am wrong. And that's okay, you closet positive trainer, you.

FourIsCompany

This seems to be just another divisive tactic to try to imply that only +P trainers are safe for people to listen to and that CM diagnoses every case as a dominance problem

I think you meant +R where you wrote +P. I'm not going to turn this into a thread about him but I do watch the show now and then. And have perceptions that are colored by what he says.

I was not intent on being divisive. The thread is "What makes a positive trainer a positive trainer" with, I suppose, the implication meaning +R, as opposed to +P, so that we can clear up the notion that someone like Frawley could be considered a positive trainer. I was giving what I thought were more characteristics of a +R trainer, which may have some inherent differences than someone who uses corrections or punishment a majority of the time. I was trying to return to the OP, as the mod suggested. And it's okay that you don't agree with me.

No harm, no foul.

ron2

I think you meant +R where you wrote +P

Yes, you're right. I was thinking Positive and wrote P.   LOL

FourIsCompany

ron2

I think you meant +R where you wrote +P

 

Yes, you're right. I was thinking Positive and wrote P.   LOL

 

Well, at least you were thinking positive.  

FourIsCompany

corvus

No, it's not about priorities for me at all. Science is not my priority in dealing with my dog. Having a happy, balanced dog is my priority ... It just so happens that as I am a scientific person, my path to my magic, spiritual relationship takes me through a lot of scientific theory.

 

Semantics. Having a happy dog is your priority, the way you go about getting that result involves your attraction and attachment to science. Same difference.

corvus

you say only one is particularly important to you

I did not say that! LOL Hon, you're being entirely too analytical right now. It's not one or the other, it's just a tendency to lean more towards one or the other. In fact, I distinctly remember saying that I LOVE science! LOL